memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Cloaking device
FA status Nomination * Cloaking device; Excellently written article, makes good use of images. Makes superb usage of available information, as well as duly noting inconsistancies. | THOR 23:24, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT) **I don't seem to miss any information. Good references, nice accompanying pictures, extensive write-up. Ottens 16:27, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT) **'Supported' Tyrant 17:10, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant **'Supported' - All the important points are there. Solid effort! -- Balok 18:36, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT) ** Support. -- SmokeDetector47 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (GMT) **'Needs More'. A few things come to mind that are missing, upon further review, such as references about chronitons, and a passing reference to . Also, , , and all contain useful references, or at the least, unexplored references to cloaks.--Gvsualan 17:48, 18 Feb 2005 (EST) ***What does "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" say about cloaks? There is an invisible budget-saving ship, but it does not use a cloak. The info on that is already at stealth, where it belongs. As for the others, I either haven't seen them ("Emissary", "Bough Breaks") or don't recall any relevance ("Past Tense" and "Die is Cast"). -- Steve 21:01, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT) :::: Just because someone hasn't watched an episode, does not mean the information is void. For specific reasons, they all possess nuggets, or the seed to other areas or abilities yet unrevealed in said article. All I am saying is that more research is required. --Gvsualan 23:32, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT) Renomination *Cloaking device -- I really like this article. Plenty of detail on the history of the cloak, its development and its variants as well as lots of references.--Scimitar 20:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC) ** Support, I nominated this a while back. Since then I think a lot of work has been done to satisfy the original complaintes that were lodged. — THOR 21:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC) ** Support - I agree this article is great! Its got loads of information about cloaking, and is packed with references to episodes. Well done to everyone who contributed to this article! zsingaya 16:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ** Support - Agreed. -- Dmsdbo 22:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Scimitar The Scimitar wasn't the first ship to fire weapons whie cloacked. Could somebody add some info on the cloack used in ? Also, should we make a seperate page for the Federation cloack, since it is not only the first Federation cloack, but an enirely different type which effects the laws of physics profoundly? If so, what should we call it? -- Redge 23:57, 26 Jul 2004 (CEST) Also: References!! -- Redge 00:00, 27 Jul 2004 (CEST) Ways of detecting a cloaked ship If I remeber correctly, a cloaked ship emits tachions. The Enterprise in Nemisis used phaserfire. Is that right, and what other ways are there to find a cloaked ship? -- Redge | ''Talk'' 12:22, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST) Penetrating the cloak? I'm not sure that being able to detect a cloaked vessel by its plasma exhaust is a flaw of the cloak itself (read the fourth paragraph down from the sub section "Penetrating the cloak"). I'd say that it's more like an achilles' heel that can be used to detect a cloaked ship.--Scimitar 21:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Isolation Suit The isolation suit seen in INSURRECTION wasn't a cloaking suit, it was a holographic suit that blended in the background. One had to avoid contact with others but essentially used holographic projection to make the person "invisible"...this was not a violation of the Treaty of Algeron...the same with the holoship... 15:34, November 14, 2005 :Actually, Picard says "Computer, end program. Decloak the ship." after he has discovered the 'holo-ship' TrekFan 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC) ::The fact that Picard used the command "decloak" does not mean anything. "Cloak" is probably a term of convenience in Star Trek, used to describe a number of different technologies, not all of which may be treaty violations. Certainly the holoship cloak looked to be more a form of holographic illusion than a true cloaking device. Admittedly, that is speculation, but on the other hand, without knowing the exact text of the Treaty of Algeron, so is describing the holoship as "a clear violation". Nothing is clear if we don't know what the treaty actually says - the devil is in the details. :::Star Trek has always been VERY careful with the use of the term "cloak". There is no evidence that it is a term of convenience. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Politics and the Cloak In the TNG episode "Devil's Due," why does Picard assume that Ardra's cloaking device is Romulan rather than Klingon? When the Federation and the Klingon Empire formed an alliance, did the Federation gain the ability to detect Klingon cloaks? 16:03, February 2, 2006 Pictures? I was woundering if any one can add picture's of the Defiants cloaking device & the one that Rom & Quark stole from the klingon bird of prey to take to the mirror univers. BTW why dose the episode (the emperor's new cloak) say that the mirror universe has no cloaking tech what so ever? Awar 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC) :I'm wondering now, I've forgotten when they showed Defiant's cloak? Does anyone whatsoever remember, to know where we can get the pictures? -- Captain M.K.B. 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ::Greetings, and welcome to Memory Alpha! You can request images at . Plus, since we don't write episodes (would be nice though ;)), so it was most likely an error in part of either "The Emperor's New Cloak" or "In a Mirror, Darkly". - Enzo Aquarius 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Removed :it is possible that the Isolation suits used in Insurrection were simple holographic cloaks as full invisibility screens would be unnecessary :Speculation that the ship was provided by Section 31 would be founded, as an explanation as to how Julian Bashir was abducted for the purposes of recruitment. ( ) Speculation. --Alan 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Quantum Beacon :The first method of penetrating a cloak was developed in 2152, when Daniels provided Enterprise with 31st century quantum beacons so they could locate a Suliban stealth-cruiser. Is it just me, or does it not seem that having a quantum beacon givin to you means that you developed it? I suggest removing this and saying that the quantum beacon was developed sometime between the 24th and 31st centuries or something of the sort. Agreed being given the device or the schematics for its construction does not constitute development. ::MikeWard1701 00:35, September 22, 2010 (UTC) Also regarding the quantum beacon, it seems highly unlikely a device from the 31st century would be able to detect the Suliban and Romulan mines but not a Romulan vessel. It's more likely Daniels gave the Enterprise a beacon from some time in the future (but prior to the 31st century) that was intended to help them with the Suliban threat only, but through testing the Enterprise crew found it to be partially effective against Romulans. ::MikeWard1701 00:35, September 22, 2010 (UTC) Transporters and Cloak A friend and I were just discussing something between ourselves, as I had written a story, and had a transporter in use while a ship in question, was cloaked. On to the point, what is the status, in the Star Trek universe (well, naturally) on transporters being used while a starship is cloaked? --Terran Officer 07:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC) :A starship has to decloak before it can use its transporters.Icecreamdif 22:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::Not always, see , , and a couple other instances, I think.. They haven't held hard and fast to that rule.--31dot 22:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Removed Insurrection Entry I removed: :It is unclear whether isolation suit technology, used for anthropological purposes, is considered a true cloaking device, for the purpose of the Treaty of Algeron (TNG: "The Pegasus"; Star Trek: Insurrection). If so, the limited use of it may have been part of concessions made with the Romulan Star Empire during the Dominion War. However, the legality of Starfleet's use of a cloaked holoship on the Ba'ku planet is much more uncertain. re: its not in POV format, it speculates, and it suggests that the tech may not be the same as cloaking tech.--Hribar 01:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Edit War There is clearly an edit war in progress on this page. — Vince47 02:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :Based on what?--31dot 02:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC) ::There is no edit war going on. This page had not been edited this month at all, and has only been edited by one person (too many times, possibly) in one day. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC) No war, just a one man battle.— Vince47 04:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC) ::That still isn't a war. It isn't even a battle. It ''clearly isn't. Use if you think this is a problem. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Planetary Cloaks section removed I removed the following: :Gary Seven's mysterious sponsors kept their planet's existence a secret. Seven explained to a time-traveling Captain Kirk that "even in your time it will remain unknown." Scans conducted by Ensign Chekov revealed no evidence of a planet at the presumptive origin of Seven's long-range transporter beam. It is likely they protected the secret of their existence with some sort of planetary cloak. (TOS: "Assignment: Earth") re: The episode leaves a lot of room for speculation as to where Gary Seven's came from. Scotty states that there is no way to tell for sure where or when the transporter beam came from. Stating that he came from a cloaked planet is highly speculative. I also removed the statements about the planet Meridian since it was proven that it did not cloak. Since only the Aldea reference remains after all of this I decided to remove the section "Planetary Cloaks" and build Aldea into the section "Federation Encounters with Cloaking Technology."--Hribar 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Firing when cloaked ''Due to the enormous amount of power required to generate a cloaking field, there is by and large not enough power available to also power the weapons and shields. This has always bugged me, as I can't think of a time when the power cost problem mentioned in TOS and the statement that a ship can't fired while cloaked from Star Trek VI are combined to be the reason why a ship can't fire while cloaked. Granted, I haven't seen the TOS episodes in awhile, so maybe it's from there, but without a cite, it could just be fanon. Hence, the incite tag I added. - 10:04, March 20, 2010 (UTC) :In Romulans do "divert all power to weapons" when they de-cloak to fire. --Pseudohuman 02:15, March 21, 2010 (UTC) Well, that settles that. :) - 02:28, March 21, 2010 (UTC) :Still looks like a lot like fanon.. The energy diverting was propably just about the huge plasma torpedo weapon the Romulans were using at that time... I find it hard to believe loading and firing a standard photon torpedo requires much power from a starship. Also I dont think a link to shield power consumption has ever been established. Romulan cloaking device had to be hooked to deflector shield control on the Enterprise in but that seemed to be just about linking it to Starfleet systems... in it was stated that when "...cloak begins to engage, their shields will drop" but no statement as to why... --Pseudohuman 11:15, March 21, 2010 (UTC) Yeah, it's sitting kind of uneasy with me still as well. Too many ships seem to be able to fire while cloaked for the power to be the deciding factor. I think there was a mention in DS9 about the shields on the Defiant while it was cloaked, but I can't remember what episode. It could be part of "The Search" or "The Defiant". - 11:31, March 21, 2010 (UTC) :Nope, nothing in those, but in "The Search" when the subspace surge of the Defiant's cloak is detected, Dax reports: "..it could be a cloaked ship, but I've never seen an energy dispersal pattern like this." An energy dispersal field would make sense why energy weapons or shields can't operate simultaneously, as their energies presumably would be dispersed trying to go through. But that's just speculation. --Pseudohuman 13:18, March 22, 2010 (UTC) ::according to what is said in the next generation it seems that the romulans can fire while cloaked though they still cant use the shields.-- 19:18, November 28, 2011 (UTC) :::Where was that said?--31dot 03:09, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Removed speculative notes from bg I removed these. They just sound too much like fan speculation and rationalization to me. :An alternative theory is that history as presented in Enterprise has been distorted by the Temporal Cold War. This could certainly explain Starfleet's early encounters with Suliban cloaking technology. As for the Romulans, it is possible that they had been given cloaks earlier than originally by agents from the future, though there is no evidence for this. Another possibility is that the Federation classified all mentions of the Temporal Cold War due to the massive amounts of temporal interference. :It should also be noted that the episodes of the Babel Crisis brings up the possibility that the Romulan vessel which the NX-01 encountered in "Minefield" utilized holographic technology to render itself invisible. This, however, was never directly referenced in the episodes. ( ) --Pseudohuman 19:38, June 13, 2011 (UTC) Cloaking Shields Canonically the term "Cloaking shields" is used very often even in later seasons. this concept and this term does not seem to appear anywhere in the article. :I'm not sure it's a different concept as cloaking seems to somehow involve the shield grids (as stated in The Enteprise Incident) so "cloaking shields" might just be a synonym for the field generated by a cloak. That said, the term probably could and should be worked into the article. 31dot (talk) 02:08, April 26, 2013 (UTC) ::Added it to mechanics. It seems to be a synonym for the "cloaking field" term, also often used. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:56, August 9, 2013 (UTC) Where do you install a cloak? Just curious. Did the shows/movies ever say where the cloak was installed? Is it just assumed Engineering, or was there a special room on some ships? --Hawku (talk) 05:13, January 20, 2014 (UTC) :Seems to me, that there usually is a specific room for the device when a ship is designed to serve with a cloaking device, such as the Romulan D7, and the Defiant, but when a cloak is just tested or experimented with, it is usually just installed into main engineering. The main idea, as I understand it, in any case is just that where ever the device is, it is tied into the ship's deflector shield grid, and the warp core supplies the energy to the deflector grid, so the main engineering is sort of a natural place to tie it in, if you dont have a room specifically designated to the device. --Pseudohuman (talk) 06:09, January 20, 2014 (UTC) ::Scotty installed the cloak they stole in in Engineering because he needed to link it in with the shields. 31dot (talk) 11:23, January 20, 2014 (UTC) Contradiction regarding feasibility of cloaking The "Early cloaking technology" section is comprised mostly of encounters with Suliban cloaking, which of course doesn't mean much regarding cloaking in the 22nd and 23rd centuries. However it's indicated near the end that in April 2152, the Enterprise encounters Romulan cloaking technology. Despite this encounter, the "Federation encounters with cloaking technology" section opens with "By the 23rd century, the very idea of practical invisibility was considered only theoretically possible, due to the enormous amount of power required.". This seems to blatantly contradict the encounter with the Romulans half a century prior. Is it just the various series contradicting one another? Turbler (talk) 07:07, September 29, 2017 (UTC) :Kinda, yeah. But these talk pages aren't for general discussion. For a more detailed discussion on how this all works out, you might want to try the reference desk, or if you're a masochist, the discuss link on top of this page. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:45, September 29, 2017 (UTC) Particle Radiation There is a commentary line in the article of "Suliban cloaking devices seem to use a form of particle radiation to render objects invisible." What is this claim based on? If nothing, it should be removed. :I think it was mentioned somewhere in . -- Compvox (talk) 16:42, November 2, 2017 (UTC) Species You should add species that utilize cloaking tech to the article. Kamo kuda (talk) 14:09, April 19, 2019 (UTC)